Brain Scams

The latest neuro-nonsense is part of a larger drive towards reductionism in science.

Imagine that Tom is analysing a work of literature – The Grapes of Wrath, say. He looks at the plot, characterisation, and historical context, and uses various other tools of literary analysis to extract insights from- and perceive meaning in the text. But Paula decides to take a different approach. She examines the type of paper that the book was printed on, and then looks at the ink used, employing gas chromatography to elucidate the chemical makeup of its ingredients. After also measuring the ink’s viscosity and the magnetic properties of semi-glossy paper, Paula tells Tom that the book can be fully understood only through this latter, scientific methodology, and that The Grapes is nothing more than the sum of its parts – the molecular interactions between ink droplets and the cellulose in the paper.

Reductionism can go haywire, reducing all phenomenon to molecules in action.

Science has made great progress in the last three centuries by pressing the cause of reductionism. The idea is that underneath complex phenomena and entities are simpler, more fundamental layers that can be studied in order to fully elucidate the complex conglomerate. For example, biology has benefited by exploiting the reductionist tools of biochemistry - reducing complex biological phenomena to the level of chemistry.

But, as in our literary example above, the process can go haywire. Here is a typical expression of this meshugas, from no less a scientist than Francis Crick. In his book The Astonishing Hypothesis, Crick began with this conjecture:

“...that ‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”1

The key phrase here is no more. To Crick, as to the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, there is nothing more to any phenomenon than molecules in motion.

Informed consumers of science need to be aware of the limits of reductionism in science in general, and in biology especially. Brain scans provide a useful context in which to analyse this caveat.

This Is Your Brain on God

In 1986 Patricia Churchland published Neurophilosophy, arguing that the questions that had been discussed by philosophers over many centuries would be solved once they were rephrased as questions of neuroscience. This was the first major outbreak of a new academic malaise: If philosophy could be replaced by neuroscience, why not the rest of the humanities? Disciplines that relied on critical judgment and cultural immersion could be given a scientific gloss when rebranded as neuroethics, neuromusicology, or neuroarthistory (the subject of a book, believe it or not, by John Onians).2

The idea that a neurological explanation could exhaust the meaning of experience was already being mocked as “medical materialism” by the psychologist William James a century ago.3 And in The Invisible Gorilla (2010), Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons advise readers to be wary of such “brain porn”. But popular magazines, science websites and books are frenzied consumers of- and proselytisers for these scans. “This is your brain on music,” announces a caption to a set of fMRI images, and we are invited to conclude that we now understand more about the experience of listening to music. The genre is inexhaustible: “This is your brain on poker,” “This is your brain on metaphor,” “This is your brain on diet soda,” “This is your brain on God” and so on. The attempt to explain, through snazzy brain-imaging studies, not only how thoughts and emotions function, but how politics and religion work, and what the correct answers are to age-old philosophical controversies is nothing less than an intellectual plague of neuroscientism. For years, the uninformed public has been deluged by references to innumerable studies that “explain” the most complex, subtle and ethereal phenomena on the basis of some color-drenched picture of a sliced brain. The accompanying report, which purports to explain why human beings love, or envy, or believe in God, or prefer Coke to Pepsi, is heavy on neuro-babble. This is reductionist science run amok. The ubiquity of headlines containing phrases like brain scans show is matched only by the confusion they create in the minds of the public. So let’s revise some basics.

Brain Scans as Rorschach Tests

The human brain is, so far as we know, the most complex object in the universe. That a part of it “lights up” on a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan does not mean that the rest is inactive; it means that certain areas in the brain have an elevated oxygen consumption when a subject performs a task such as reading or reacting to stimuli such as pictures or sounds. The significance of this is not necessarily obvious. Technicolor brain scans are not anything remotely like photographs of the brain in action in real time.

Brain imaging is ubiquitous in pop science mostly because the images are media-friendly. The technology lulls the masses into thinking that the most complex entities and phenomena are reducible to simple images on a screen, a perfect fit for a generation hooked on iGadgets. Pretty pictures of the brain can seduce us into drawing simplistic conclusions, leading us to ask more of these images than they can possibly deliver. And even if brain scans were reliable indicators of brain activity, it is not straightforward to infer general lessons about life from experiments conducted under highly artificial conditions. (And of course, let’s remember that we do not have the faintest clue about the biggest mystery of all – how a lump of grey matter produces the conscious experience we take for granted.)

Paul Fletcher, Professor of health neuroscience at Cambridge University, says that he gets “exasperated” by much popular coverage of neuro-imaging research, which assumes that “activity in a brain region is the answer to some profound question about psychological processes. This is very hard to justify given how little we currently know about what different regions of the brain actually do.” Too often, he says, a popular writer will “opt for some sort of neuro-flapdoodle in which a highly simplistic and questionable point is accompanied by a suitably grand-sounding neural term and thus acquires a weightiness that it really doesn’t deserve. In my view, this is no different to some mountebank selling quacksalve by talking about the physics of water molecules’ memories, or a beautician talking about action liposomes.”

When the media conjure up stories with titles like “Brain Scans Show Vegetarians and Vegans More Empathic than Omnivores,” the content is almost entirely fictitious. It would be somewhat amusing if not for the fact that the masses out there take this as Science – magisterial, peremptory, authoritative.

In psychiatry, neurology and psychology, just about any conclusion is possible if you pick your evidence carefully.

Examples of this pop-science abound. Marketing consultant Martin Lindstrom tells us that people “love” their iPhones. This conclusion is based on the fact that brain scans of telephone users listening to their personal ring tones showed a “flurry of activation” in the insula, a prune-sized area of the brain. But researchers at UCLA claimed that photos of former presidential candidate John Edwards provoked feelings of “disgust” in subjects because they lit up the… insula. Is dopamine “the molecule of intuition”, as Jonah Lehrer suggested in The Decisive Moment (2009), or is it the basis of “the neural highway that’s responsible for generating the pleasurable emotions”, as he wrote in Imagine (2012)? Susan Cain’s Quiet: the Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking (2012), meanwhile, calls dopamine the “reward chemical” and postulates that extroverts are more responsive to it. Other stars of the pop literature are the hormone oxytocin (the “love chemical”) and mirror neurons, which allegedly explain empathy.

Just about any conclusion in science – but especially in psychiatry, neurology and psychology - is possible, if you pick your evidence carefully. “Having outlined your theory,” says Professor Fletcher, “you can then cite a finding from a neuro-imaging study identifying, for example, activity in a brain region such as the insula... You then select from among the many theories of insula function, choosing the one that best fits with your overall hypothesis, but neglecting to mention that nobody really knows what the insula does or that there are many ideas about its possible function.” The insula plays a role in a broad range of psychological experiences, including empathy and disgust, but also sudden insight, uncertainty, and the awareness of bodily sensations, such as pain, hunger, and thirst. With such a broad physiological portfolio, it is no surprise that the insula is activated in many fMRI studies.

If human beings are no more than a collection of biochemical responses responsibility, beauty and altruism go out of the window.

Even more versatile than the insula is the infamous amygdala. Invariably described as “primitive” or even “reptilian”, the amygdala shows increased activation when one experiences fear, but it also springs to life when one encounters novel or unexpected stimuli. (In The Republican Brain, Chris Mooney suggests that “conservatives and authoritarians” might be the nasty way they are because they have a “more active amygdala”.) The multi-functionality of most brain areas renders reasoning backwards from neural activation depicted by a scan to the subjective experience of the brain’s owner a dubious strategy. This approach – formally referred to as “reverse inference,” – is nothing but a high-tech and expensive Rorschach test, inviting interpreters to read whatever they wish into ambiguous findings. There is strong evidence for the amygdala’s role in fear, but then fear is one of the most heavily studied emotions; popularisers downplay or ignore the amygdala’s associations with the cuddlier emotions and memory.

The Molecules Did It

One general lesson to take from all of this is that, notwithstanding the hype, results in science often mask an abyss of ignorance which, nonetheless, can be successfully marketed to an unsuspecting public. But, more importantly, a dangerous consequence of neuro-nonsense is its implicit tendency to abolish human responsibility. Take, for example, how addiction is often discussed nowadays in pop culture. We’ve known for ages that smoking, drinking, snorting cocaine and watching pornography can be habit forming. When neuroscientists say that such activities are associated with increased dopamine levels, this is treated as some breakthrough in understanding addiction. One such article4 tells us that

In the past, addiction was thought to be a weakness of character, but in recent decades research has increasingly found that addiction to drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine is a matter of brain chemistry.

Well, consider this:

In the past, the power of The Grapes of Wrath was thought to involve plot, characterisation, composition and so forth, but in recent decades research has found that it is a matter of chemical interactions between ink and paper.5

The philosopher Roger Scruton summarises the danger well:

Michael Gazzaniga’s influential study, The Ethical Brain, of 2005, has given rise to ‘Law and Neuroscience’ as an academic discipline, combining legal reasoning and brain imaging, largely to the detriment of our old ideas of responsibility... It seems to me that aesthetics, criticism, musicology and law are real disciplines, but not sciences. They are not concerned with explaining some aspect of the human condition but with understanding it, according to its own internal procedures... Brain imaging won’t help you to analyse Bach’s Art of Fugue or to interpret King Lear any more than it will unravel the concept of legal responsibility... The invention of ‘neurolaw’ is, it seems to me, profoundly dangerous, since it cannot fail to abolish freedom and accountability – not because those things don’t exist, but because they will never crop up in a brain scan.

The plague of neuro-nonsense is part of a much broader trend in Western science. It is the almost-inevitable culmination of the march to reductionism over the past 300 years. Reductionism almost invariably goes hand-in-hand with materialism, the nothing-but-molecules-in-motion philosophy which got such a boost from Darwin’s Origin of Species. If evolutionary biology is right, the ineluctable conclusion is that human beings are no more than a collection of biochemical responses to stimuli and neuronal interactions. Responsibility and justice, beauty and altruism, discipline and empathy then all go out of the window. When materialist reductionism runs riot, we all lose.

Acknowledgement: This article incorporates some sentences from the online essays cited below.

1 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, 1994, A Touchstone Book published by Simon and Schuster, page 3.

Visitor Comments: 12

(7)
Graviela,
May 28, 2014 7:33 PM

Neuroscience

Interesting article. Neuroscience has advanced from the days of linking the Creator's addition of melanin in our genes to brain size. Or, our ability to manage our behavioral responses completely independent of neurological function (i.e., snap out of your depression & get out of bed). Yet, we have a long journey in truly understanding the complexities of the most unique organ we have been given. I agree with the comment above. In time, valid understandings of the brain eventually find its way into our lives.

(6)
Phil,
May 28, 2014 5:28 AM

To Yehudith (comment #1)

I'm not a fan of the use of the words "meshugas" and "neuro-nonsense" either, but I suspect the author would reply to your post by pointing out the following sentences he wrote: "Science has made great progress in the last three centuries by pressing the cause of reductionism. The idea is that underneath complex phenomena and entities are simpler, more fundamental layers that can be studied in order to fully elucidate the complex conglomerate. For example, biology has benefited by exploiting the reductionist tools of biochemistry - reducing complex biological phenomena to the level of chemistry. But, as in our literary example above, the process can go haywire."

Yehudith Shraga,
May 28, 2014 11:57 AM

Rasha Yakhin Tzadik Ilbash

The Sages say that we can use everything for our benefit, even the results of the reseaches of reductionists, and they DO have their point.

The Kabbalists state that behind all the complexity of the creation there is a very simple formula of all the reality-Ohr veKli(The Light of the Creator and the Vessel=creaion's ability to get It), besides, there is a point that the Creator created us of material particles too, be it only the Soul which matters, there would be no "bodies", and as these are the bodies(=our wishes to get for the sake of getting) which need the correction, with the time, we would find the way to trace our getting or bestowing intentions on the molecular level as well, so do not panic, let the reductionists make their work, it may be used by those who know exactly how to use their results in the right context.

Phil,
May 28, 2014 10:15 PM

In agreement

Whew, thanks for reminding me not to panic. I thought it was already clear that neither I nor the author disagrees with your point.

(5)
shadchun,
May 27, 2014 4:23 PM

Awesome research and effort for this article

(4)
susan,
May 27, 2014 1:52 PM

Darwin

Is the author stating in his closing paragraph that Darwin ' s evolution is as you say " pop science". If you are you espouse the same views as the radical Christian right . I hardly think that was the intention of this article.

Phil,
May 28, 2014 5:31 AM

nuance

I believe the author is referring to the reporting of the science, not the science itself.

(3)
Miriam,
May 27, 2014 9:42 AM

Dust in the Wind...

All We Are is Dust in the Wind...Suicides hit an all record high the year that song came out. This is the greatest proof of the neshama, the piece of G-d within each one of us. If we are all dust in the wind why do these obscene, nonsensical theories make us feel so sad? Because we aren't dust in the wind. We each have a neshama which makes us a thinking soul with free choice. And that neshama has the intellectual ability to sense our potential for greatness and feel tremendous pain when these "theories" are "discussed".Thank you for printing this important article.

(2)
Anonymous,
May 26, 2014 6:55 PM

As a frum Jew and current university student studying anatomy and physiology, I found this article really fascinating!!

(1)
Yehudith Shraga,
May 26, 2014 1:40 PM

The choice of vocabulary

While the article reminds us that trying to reduce our understanding to some already known phenomena results in the limitation of our ability to comprehend the G-d's Creation,the expressions such as "meshugas" and "neuro-nonsense" are complete out of order.

Kabbalists teach us that there are Panim and Achora'im to all the phemomina in the world, and our purpose is to discover the bright site of each, while to stay away from the dark site, while it is corrected and may be used for the bestowing purposes only.

There is no place within the aish.com 2000 word-comment limit to give the examples of the medical cases, where the neuro-sience saved the lives and improve the life quality of many sick people with the help of so called by the author brain "scams", but it is enough to say that Kabbalaists state that any phenomenon which seems to us useless, but is kept by the Creator in this world, have its purpose which we are still to discover( including the difference on the molecular and chemical levels in our brain and other body glands in one and the same situation, choose we react to it in bestowing or getting way!)

The lack of combination between science and Hokhmat haKabbalah( the G-d's Wisdom) brings us to exagerations and limitations in all the fields of human knowledge including Neuroscience. There were and are and will be the scientists who try to simplify the WONDER of the G-d's Creation, and try to show that everything is clear to them, as there will be always different points of view on one and the same phenomenon till we come to the complete correction of our getting nature, still the first step to the union is to see a positive(Panim) impact of something for the humanity instead of criticizing the negative(Achora'im) one, as well as the choice of the words and expressions we choose to state our personal point of view.

Dvirah,
May 28, 2014 4:15 PM

Misunderstanding

The author did not say that brain scans are useless, but that they are being misued.

Yehudith Shraga,
May 29, 2014 6:57 PM

The author has his point, but TOO much negative attitude is no good

Calling brain scans "brain scams" speaks for itself. There is also little if any positive words in the favor of neuroscience in the article, so it sounds as if every neuroscientist is a reductionist and even if it is so, there is still a bright side of the process. As stated in comment 6:"The biology has benefited by exploiting the reductionist tools of biochemistry - reducing complex biological phenomena to the level of chemistry.", and as the Sages teach us that everything in this world may be used for the right purposes by the right people.Some of us remember the discussions of 30-40 years old, when some scientists promised that in several years they would have an artificial intellect ready, a lot of useful things have sprout from their researches since then, but there is still no artificial intellect which may be seen as equal to ours.

I live in rural Montana where the Cholov Yisrael milk is difficult to obtain and very expensive. So I drink regular milk. What is your view on this?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Jewish law requires that there be rabbinic supervision during the milking process to ensure that the milk comes from a kosher animal. In the United States, many people rely on the Department of Agriculture's regulations and controls as sufficiently stringent to fulfill the rabbinic requirement for supervision.

Most of the major Kashrut organizations in the United States rely on this as well. You will therefore find many kosher products in America certified with a 'D' next to the kosher symbol. Such products – unless otherwise specified on the label – are not Cholov Yisrael and are assumed kosher based on the DOA's guarantee.

There are many, however, do not rely on this, and will eat only dairy products that are designated as Cholov Yisrael (literally, "Jewish milk"). This is particularly true in large Jewish communities, where Cholov Yisrael is widely available.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that under limited conditions, such as an institution which consumes a lot of milk and Cholov Yisrael is generally unavailable or especially expensive, American milk is acceptable, as the government supervision is adequate to prevent non-kosher ingredients from being added.

It should be added that the above only applies to milk itself, which is marketed as pure cow's milk. All other dairy products, such as cheeses and butter, may contain non-kosher ingredients and always require kosher certification. In addition, Rabbi Feinstein's ruling applies only in the United States, where government regulations are considered reliable. In other parts of the world, including Europe, Cholov Yisrael is a requirement.

There are additional esoteric reasons for being stringent regarding Cholov Yisrael, and because of this it is generally advisable to consume only Cholov Yisroel dairy foods.

In 1889, 800 Jews arrived in Buenos Aires, marking the birth of the modern Jewish community in Argentina. These immigrants were fleeing poverty and pogroms in Russia, and moved to Argentina because of its open door policy of immigration. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Juan Peron's rise to power in 1946 was an ominous sign, as he was a Nazi sympathizer with fascist leanings. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina, introduced mandatory Catholic religious instruction in public schools, and allowed Argentina to become a haven for fleeing Nazis. (In 1960, Israeli agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from a Buenos Aires suburb.) Today, Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America with 250,000, though terror attacks have prompted many young people to emigrate. In 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 32 people. In 1994, the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people. The perpetrators have never been apprehended.

Be aware of what situations and behaviors give you pleasure. When you feel excessively sad and cannot change your attitude, make a conscious effort to take some action that might alleviate your sadness.

If you anticipate feeling sad, prepare a list of things that might make you feel better. It could be talking to a specific enthusiastic individual, running, taking a walk in a quiet area, looking at pictures of family, listening to music, or reading inspiring words.

While our attitude is a major factor in sadness, lack of positive external situations and events play an important role in how we feel.

[If a criminal has been executed by hanging] his body may not remain suspended overnight ... because it is an insult to God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

Rashi explains that since man was created in the image of God, anything that disparages man is disparaging God as well.

Chilul Hashem, bringing disgrace to the Divine Name, is one of the greatest sins in the Torah. The opposite of chilul Hashem is kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the Divine Name. While this topic has several dimensions to it, there is a living kiddush Hashem which occurs when a Jew behaves in a manner that merits the respect and admiration of other people, who thereby respect the Torah of Israel.

What is chilul Hashem? One Talmudic author stated, "It is when I buy meat from the butcher and delay paying him" (Yoma 86a). To cause someone to say that a Torah scholar is anything less than scrupulous in meeting his obligations is to cause people to lose respect for the Torah.

Suppose someone offers us a business deal of questionable legality. Is the personal gain worth the possible dishonor that we bring not only upon ourselves, but on our nation? If our personal reputation is ours to handle in whatever way we please, shouldn't we handle the reputation of our nation and the God we represent with maximum care?

Jews have given so much, even their lives, for kiddush Hashem. Can we not forego a few dollars to avoid chilul Hashem?

Today I shall...

be scrupulous in all my transactions and relationships to avoid the possibility of bringing dishonor to my God and people.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...